Decision-making about mode of delivery after previous caesarean section: Development and piloting of two computer-based decision aids

Health Expectations

Volumn 10, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 161-172

  Emmett, Clare L ^a   Murphy, Deirdre J ^b   Patel, Roshni R ^a   Fahey, Tom ^c   Jones, Claire ^c   Ricketts, Ian W ^c   Gregor, Peter ^c   Macleod, Maureen ^c   Montgomery, Alan A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRISTOL   (United Kingdom)

^b TRINITY COLLEGE DUBLIN   (Ireland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF DUNDEE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Caesarean section; Childbirth; Decision aid; Patient involvement; Pilot study

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CESAREAN SECTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DELIVERY; ELECTIVE SURGERY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; MEDICAL INFORMATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; RISK BENEFIT ANALYSIS; UNITED KINGDOM; VAGINAL DELIVERY;

EID: 34249294478     PISSN: 13696513     EISSN: 13697625     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2006.00429.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists Clinical Effectiveness Support Unit. The National Sentinel Caesarean Section Audit Report. London:RCOG Press, 2001.
2. Hamilton BE, Martin JA, Sutton PD. Births: preliminary data for 2002. National Vital Statistics Report, 2003 51:4 5.
3. Nassar N, Sullivan E. Australia's Mothers and Babies 1999. Sydney:Australian Institute of Health and Welfare National Perinatal Statistics Unit, 2001.
4. Eden KB, Hashima JN, Osterweil P, Nygren P, Guise J-M. Childbirth preferences after cesarean birth: a review of evidence. Birth, 2004 31:49 60.
5. Emmett CL, Shaw ARG, Montgomery AA, Murphy DJ. Women's experience of decision-making about mode of delivery after a previous caesarean section: the role of health professionals and information about health risks. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2006 113:1438 1445.
6. Anderson GM. Making sense of rising caesarean section rates. British Medical Journal, 2004 329:696 697.
7. Fraser W, Maunsell E, Hodnett E, Moutquin J-M, the Childbirth Alternatives Post-Cesarean Study Group. Randomized controlled trial of a prenatal vaginal birth after cesarean section education and support program. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1997 176:419 425.
8. Walker R, Turnbull D, Pratt N, Wilkinson C. The development and process evaluation of an information-based intervention for pregnant women aimed at addressing rates of caesarean section. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2005 112:1605 1614.
9. Paterson-Brown S, Amu O, Rajendran S, Bolaji II. Education and debate: should doctors perform and elective caesarean section on request British Medical Journal, 1998 317:462 465.
10. Minkoff H, Chervenak FA. Elective primary cesarean delivery. New England Journal of Medicine, 2003 348:946 950.
11. Department of Health. Changing Childbirth: Part I. Report of the Expert Maternity Group. London:HMSO, 1993.
12. National Institute of Clinical Excellence. Caesarean Section: Clinical Guideline 13. London:National Institute of Clinical Excellence, 2004.
13. Lavender T, Kingdon C, Hart A, Gyte G, Gabbay M, Neilson JP. Could a randomised trial answer the controversy relating to elective caesarean section? National survey of consultant obstetricians and heads of midwifery. British Medical Journal, 2005 331:490 491.
14. Kamal P, Dixon-Woods M, Kurinczuk JJ, Oppenheimer C, Squire P, Waugh J. Factors influencing repeat caesarean section: qualitative exploratory study of obstetricians' and midwives accounts. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 2005 112:1 7.
15. York S, Briscoe L, Walkinshaw S, Lavender T. Why women choose to have a repeat caesarean section. British Journal of Midwifery, 2005 13:440 445.
16. O'Connor AM, Stacey D, Entwistle V et al. Decision Aids for Patients Facing Health Treatment or Screening Decisions (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library, Issue 1. Chichester, UK:John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
17. O'Connor AM, Rostim A, Fiset V et al. Decision aids for patients facing health treatment or screening decisions: systematic review. British Medical Journal, 1999 319:731 734.
18. Bekker HL, Hewison J, Thornton JG. Understanding why decision aids work: linking process with outcome. Patient Education and Counseling, 2003 50:323 329.
19. Roberts CL, Raynes-Greenow CH, Nassar N, Trevena L, McCaffery K. Protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a decision aid for the management of pain in labour and childbirth. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2004 4:24.
20. Roberts CL, Nassar N, Barratt A, Raynes-Greenow CH, Peat B, Henderson-Smart D. Protocol for the evaluation of a decision aid for women with a breech-presenting baby. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2004 4:26.
21. Shorten A, Chamberlain M, Shorten B, Kariminia A. Making choices for childbirth: development and testing of a decision-aid for women who have experienced previous caesarean. Patient Education and Counseling, 2004 52:307 313.
22. Shorten A, Shorten B, Keogh J, West S, Morris J. Making choices for childbirth: a randomized controlled trial of a decision-aid for informed birth after casarean. Birth, 2005 32:252 261.
23. Chuang J-H, Jenders RA. Trial of Labor versus Elective Repeat Cesarean Section for the Women with Previous Cesarean Section: a Decision Analysis. Proceedings of the AMIA Annual Symposium, 1999:226 230.
24. Mankuta DD, Leshno MM, Menasche MM, Brezis MM. Vaginal birth after cesarean section: trial of labor or repeat cesarean section? A decision analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 2003 189:714 719.
25. Shy KK, Logerfo JP, Karp LE. Evaluation of elective repeat cesarean section as a standard of care: an application of decision analysis. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 1981 139:123 129.
26. Elwyn G, Edwards A, Eccles M, Rovner D. Decision analysis in patient care. Lancet, 2001 358:571 574.
27. Montgomery AA, Fahey T, Peters TJ. A factorial randomised controlled trial of decision analysis and an information video plus leaflet for newly diagnosed hypertensive patients. British Journal of General Practice, 2003 53:446 453.
28. Montgomery AA, the DiAMOND Study Group. The DiAMOND trial protocol: a randomised controlled trial of two decision aids for mode of delivery among women with a previous caesarean section. BMC Pregnancy and Childbirth, 2004 4:25.
29. Edwards A, Elwyn G, Mulley A. Explaining risks: turning numerical data in meaningful pictures. British Medical Journal, 2002 324:827 830.
30. Paling J. Strategies to help patients understand risks. British Medical Journal, 2003 327:745 748.
31. Wills CE, Holmes-Rovner M. Patient comprehension of information for shared treatment decision making: state of the art and future directions. Patient Education and Counseling, 2003 50:285 290.
32. Campbell M, Fitzpatrick R, Haines A et al. Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. British Medical Journal, 2000 321:694 696.
33. Elwyn G, O'Connor AM, Stacey D et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. British Medical Journal, 2006 333:417.
34. Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD. Challenges for designing and implementing decision aids. Patient Education and Counseling, 2004 54:265 273.
35. Charles C, Gafni A, Whelan T, O'Brien MA. Treatment decision aids: conceptual issues and future directions. Health Expectations, 2005 8:114 125.
36. Dowie J. The role of patients' meta-preferences in the design and evaluation of decision support systems. Health Expectations, 2002 5:16 27.